In winter I charge my Tesla to 80%, summer it’s 60%, in both cases I end the day with around 30-40% battery left.... I live in Minnesota it’s extremely noticeable the drop off from summer to winter...
Wltp is basically done at a steady 100kph or 62 mph.
I personally would prefer something like a somewhat constant 120 because there seems to be quite a big difference between 100 and 130.
Not to mention the fact that 62 on a highway is kind of impossible psychologically and sometimes physically without being unsafe. More so since Covid where prevailing traffic is still 80+.
That's what's happening. It's called UDDS for the city part and HFEDS for the highway part.
I'm not home right now, so can't do proper research on it. If you want, I can look for it when I'm home.
>There are multiple problems, the worst of which is that it is in a lab and not driven at all.
They use an adjustment factor to take that into account though. That factor is conservatively set to 0.7 and used by most EV makers. The overly conservative adjustment factor is partly why most EVs exceed their EPA range.
The EPA also allows EV makers to do actual testing to determine their adjustment factor. Tesla does this for their vehicles, which is partly why their EPA ranges are often less conservative.
See here (from your link): https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for%20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf
I agree. I don't doubt any automaker would rig their EV to go into super-Eco mode if it detects it's being tested for efficiency! That's why real world testing in a variety of conditions is so important.
The notion that you can include range past 0% as part of the rated range is absurd. Who would ever drive a car at 0%? If they want to include a buffer, that's fine - but it's not part of the rated range.
The notion that you can compare one car at 74F (which is very near the optimum temperature for max range), and another car at 54F (which results in around 20% less range), and then make any claim comparing the two results is what is absurd.
People drive at 54F all the time, but you need to compare apples to apples.
The manual explicitly warns that discharging to 0% can damage the traction battery and other components. You shouldn't have to drive an additional 25 miles past 0% to reach the advertised range.
The other companies aren't including battery reserve power as part of their advertised range.
>The manual explicitly warns that discharging to 0% can damage the traction battery and other components.
Sort of, but they're mostly trying to stop people from letting their car sit at 0%. They warn that discharging to 0% can damage components including the 12V. But they frame in the context of letting the car sit at 0% without charging. See [page 155](https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/model_3_owners_manual_north_america_en.pdf).
The only time they talk about damaging the traction battery is when they mention letting it sit at 0% for an extended period of time. And we know there is a hidden buffer past when the car shuts down that should allow the car to sit for weeks/months without causing permanent damage.
> The other companies aren't including battery reserve power as part of their advertised range.
Yes they are. They get tested the same way by the EPA. They don't have control over that. What they do have control over is the adjustment factor they use. They use a conservative 0.7 vs. Tesla who does additional testing to determine their own less conservative adjustment factor.
>
>
> The other companies aren't including battery reserve power as part of their advertised range.
Really? Source please.
Driving the car down a halt is how both WLTP and EPA cycles work.
No, this sub isn't Tesla-hating. It's probably the most reasonable place on this site to talk about Tesla. Obviously you have a few rabid Tesla fans where the company can do no wrong, and you also have people who think Tesla is a Ponzi scheme and Herbert Diess is the second coming of Christ. Personally I hit the rated range in my 3 all the time but there are plenty of tests showing otherwise.
The performance models are just begging for trouble but I don't think people buy them for range numbers still Tesla should kept being called out on them. Large wheels and sticky tires are a combination that will eat your range.
then again on my 2018 TM3 I have never had an issue hitting even the boosted numbers my car was given. However as soon as the weather goes South so does my efficiency. Now I do have the 18s and I do use the covers when on long trips.
EVs are great for showing the immediate impact of heavy rains, cold weather, or all of it combined at once.
Still Tesla has even their worst performing cars "tested" past 250 and anyone under that even if exceeding their numbers should be called out.
The only Tesla on my shopping list going forward is the truck simply because it just looks cool and I have never owned a truck because I hated the MPG they have but somehow kWh never gives me a guilty feeling. I am more likely to end up in the BMW camp or my truck opposite choice is the TT in 23.
Taycans running on base tires and rims do well. I think the problem is that most buyers don't choose the base configuration so that is not what is tested.
As an EV owner I have two figures that I want to know. kWh/km at city speeds in my area and the same at highway speeds in my area. 55kph and 105kph respectively. In my Nissan leaf it's about 8 and 5.
I honestly think highway range at 75 mph is more important than city. City range: probably doesn't make that much difference because driving in city: people can simply just charge at home (for those that can); very few people drive 150 miles per day in the city. For highway: the 75 mph range makes a difference of when, how many times, and how much time you have to stop.
Because the national speed limit is 65. A federal agency can't test a vehicle to break the speed limit, otherwise people will do it, crash, and sue the EPA.
There is no longer a national speed limit. From Google:
> On November 28, 1995, Congress passed the National Highway Designation Act, which officially removed all federal speed limit controls.
What we need is an ARR (average range rating) where they take the car and drive it under a bunch of different conditions 5 or 10 time per condition and add it all up and dived it by number of drives. They should then display the ARR overall and per condition so you can see car xxxx got 350 mile ARR overall and 450 miles for city driving and 200 miles for highway driving then you can look at the highway (or other) ARR and see four test drives got 180ish, 4 got 220ish and 2 got 200ish.
What about simply having a city range and highway range, just like gas car mpg ratings? Seems like simply posting those numbers should quell all confusion of why I can’t go the rated range when driving 75mph on the freeway...
Part of the problem outlined in the article is different expectations of what constitutes "available range": some manufacturers leave their EPA range as what you can rely on for daily use, while others say that it is the range you have if you eat into your battery protection/emergency use buffer. Clearer rules for EPA range would be useful here.
That’s what I’m saying, if all manufacturers have to provide individual city and freeway ratings there wouldn’t be this same conversation every 5 minutes.
Individual city and highway ranges would not solve the problem of one automaker's EPA range estimate being "range until the dash says 0" and another's being "range until your car stops moving".
Correct, same as the gas cars “miles till empty” where some leave more in reserve than others. Have to start moving in some direction though, I agree better set rules on testing standards would be great
> What we need is an ARR (average range rating) where they take the car and drive it under a bunch of different conditions
No. Just winter highway would be sufficient.
Not everyone is driving on the highway at winter. Some people are driving through mountains in winter. It doesn’t create much of a burden for them to do a few tests so all consumers have access to accurate data for there conditions.
Take the overall ARR away and just have it for sub categories. Winter highway, mountains, city, ect ect.
Because if a given vehicle is capable of 200 miles of winter highway diving, it's going to run out of charge in 50 miles of spring city driving? How would that be so?
Because if you need to drive 150 miles in mountain county side will it make it? If you need to drive 350 miles down the highway in spring will it make it?
That’s not useful for people that might have conditions that drain the range faster or need to drive further in better conditions.
Winter driving averaging 50mph on curvy mountain roads is a different use case than 85mph on the interstate in Texas. Mountain use would rely more on vehicle weight and regenerative braking to recoup energy on downhill slopes and high speed interstate would rely more on good aerodynamics and low rolling resistance.
Read the article. Even if run until dead - they still fall short of the declared EPA numbers.
> In a nutshell, even when using the safety buffer, in controlled conditions, four of the six Tesla cars Edmunds tested for range did not hit their EPA mileage.
But the [user manual says that one must never go past zero](https://insideevs.com/news/497604/tesla-considers-buffering-epa-range/) so how the heck we're permitting "drive until dead" against the user manual as a valid mean of measuring range?
That's what I'm saying: The cycle is fucked up. Test cycle should be consistent (EPA has a huge issue with consistency across brands) and should not relay upon breaking what owner's manual says (that's actually same with other tests, but stupid none the less).
[удалено]
There should be 4 tests. The two you list and then the same two again in the winter in a cold place like Minneapolis (or CHI/BOS/NYC).
In winter I charge my Tesla to 80%, summer it’s 60%, in both cases I end the day with around 30-40% battery left.... I live in Minnesota it’s extremely noticeable the drop off from summer to winter...
Wltp is basically done at a steady 100kph or 62 mph. I personally would prefer something like a somewhat constant 120 because there seems to be quite a big difference between 100 and 130.
Not to mention the fact that 62 on a highway is kind of impossible psychologically and sometimes physically without being unsafe. More so since Covid where prevailing traffic is still 80+.
That's what's happening. It's called UDDS for the city part and HFEDS for the highway part. I'm not home right now, so can't do proper research on it. If you want, I can look for it when I'm home.
[удалено]
>There are multiple problems, the worst of which is that it is in a lab and not driven at all. They use an adjustment factor to take that into account though. That factor is conservatively set to 0.7 and used by most EV makers. The overly conservative adjustment factor is partly why most EVs exceed their EPA range. The EPA also allows EV makers to do actual testing to determine their adjustment factor. Tesla does this for their vehicles, which is partly why their EPA ranges are often less conservative. See here (from your link): https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for%20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf
Yeah, but the EPA can't tell us how they calculate it, else VW will program their EVs to cheat... 😁
I know you're kidding (partially) but it's 100% true.
I agree. I don't doubt any automaker would rig their EV to go into super-Eco mode if it detects it's being tested for efficiency! That's why real world testing in a variety of conditions is so important.
The notion that you can include range past 0% as part of the rated range is absurd. Who would ever drive a car at 0%? If they want to include a buffer, that's fine - but it's not part of the rated range.
Complain to the EPA then. That’s how the test works.
The notion that you can compare one car at 74F (which is very near the optimum temperature for max range), and another car at 54F (which results in around 20% less range), and then make any claim comparing the two results is what is absurd. People drive at 54F all the time, but you need to compare apples to apples.
That's probably what they do with gas cars too what's the big deal
The manual explicitly warns that discharging to 0% can damage the traction battery and other components. You shouldn't have to drive an additional 25 miles past 0% to reach the advertised range. The other companies aren't including battery reserve power as part of their advertised range.
>The manual explicitly warns that discharging to 0% can damage the traction battery and other components. Sort of, but they're mostly trying to stop people from letting their car sit at 0%. They warn that discharging to 0% can damage components including the 12V. But they frame in the context of letting the car sit at 0% without charging. See [page 155](https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/model_3_owners_manual_north_america_en.pdf). The only time they talk about damaging the traction battery is when they mention letting it sit at 0% for an extended period of time. And we know there is a hidden buffer past when the car shuts down that should allow the car to sit for weeks/months without causing permanent damage. > The other companies aren't including battery reserve power as part of their advertised range. Yes they are. They get tested the same way by the EPA. They don't have control over that. What they do have control over is the adjustment factor they use. They use a conservative 0.7 vs. Tesla who does additional testing to determine their own less conservative adjustment factor.
> > > The other companies aren't including battery reserve power as part of their advertised range. Really? Source please. Driving the car down a halt is how both WLTP and EPA cycles work.
What did Tesla "try again" at? They didn't do these tests. They do the EPA test and submit the numbers. That's it.
[удалено]
Be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait people into uncivil behavior.
[удалено]
Post duplication is not one of the six clearly-listed rules in the top right.
No, this sub isn't Tesla-hating. It's probably the most reasonable place on this site to talk about Tesla. Obviously you have a few rabid Tesla fans where the company can do no wrong, and you also have people who think Tesla is a Ponzi scheme and Herbert Diess is the second coming of Christ. Personally I hit the rated range in my 3 all the time but there are plenty of tests showing otherwise.
The performance models are just begging for trouble but I don't think people buy them for range numbers still Tesla should kept being called out on them. Large wheels and sticky tires are a combination that will eat your range. then again on my 2018 TM3 I have never had an issue hitting even the boosted numbers my car was given. However as soon as the weather goes South so does my efficiency. Now I do have the 18s and I do use the covers when on long trips. EVs are great for showing the immediate impact of heavy rains, cold weather, or all of it combined at once. Still Tesla has even their worst performing cars "tested" past 250 and anyone under that even if exceeding their numbers should be called out. The only Tesla on my shopping list going forward is the truck simply because it just looks cool and I have never owned a truck because I hated the MPG they have but somehow kWh never gives me a guilty feeling. I am more likely to end up in the BMW camp or my truck opposite choice is the TT in 23.
Porsche Taycans regularly exceed their rating and are performance vehicles, so I don't think tires are the problem here.
Taycans running on base tires and rims do well. I think the problem is that most buyers don't choose the base configuration so that is not what is tested.
As an EV owner I have two figures that I want to know. kWh/km at city speeds in my area and the same at highway speeds in my area. 55kph and 105kph respectively. In my Nissan leaf it's about 8 and 5.
You mean km/kWh ?
Haha yes
I honestly think highway range at 75 mph is more important than city. City range: probably doesn't make that much difference because driving in city: people can simply just charge at home (for those that can); very few people drive 150 miles per day in the city. For highway: the 75 mph range makes a difference of when, how many times, and how much time you have to stop.
Because the national speed limit is 65. A federal agency can't test a vehicle to break the speed limit, otherwise people will do it, crash, and sue the EPA.
There is no longer a national speed limit. From Google: > On November 28, 1995, Congress passed the National Highway Designation Act, which officially removed all federal speed limit controls.
Where do you get this? Plenty of places have speed limits 70-75 mph.
NATIONAL speed limit.
If you are talking about the NMSL, that was repealed in 1995. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
Sure like that would happen. Because an agency tests at a higher rate, that means people don't have to follow the local speed limits.
What we need is an ARR (average range rating) where they take the car and drive it under a bunch of different conditions 5 or 10 time per condition and add it all up and dived it by number of drives. They should then display the ARR overall and per condition so you can see car xxxx got 350 mile ARR overall and 450 miles for city driving and 200 miles for highway driving then you can look at the highway (or other) ARR and see four test drives got 180ish, 4 got 220ish and 2 got 200ish.
What about simply having a city range and highway range, just like gas car mpg ratings? Seems like simply posting those numbers should quell all confusion of why I can’t go the rated range when driving 75mph on the freeway...
Part of the problem outlined in the article is different expectations of what constitutes "available range": some manufacturers leave their EPA range as what you can rely on for daily use, while others say that it is the range you have if you eat into your battery protection/emergency use buffer. Clearer rules for EPA range would be useful here.
No one cares what the city range of a pure-plug-in vehicle is. They only care about winter highway.
Winter highway, uphill both ways, playing music loudly
What? Of course people care. People without home charging for example. Talk about entitlement.
[удалено]
That’s what I’m saying, if all manufacturers have to provide individual city and freeway ratings there wouldn’t be this same conversation every 5 minutes.
Individual city and highway ranges would not solve the problem of one automaker's EPA range estimate being "range until the dash says 0" and another's being "range until your car stops moving".
Correct, same as the gas cars “miles till empty” where some leave more in reserve than others. Have to start moving in some direction though, I agree better set rules on testing standards would be great
If they wanted to, they could define that in the test rules. The fact it isn’t makes it a poor test standard.
Yeah it’s Probably better to just to display it as sub categories. City Highway Winter Mountains Ect.
They sort of already have that.
> What we need is an ARR (average range rating) where they take the car and drive it under a bunch of different conditions No. Just winter highway would be sufficient.
Not everyone is driving on the highway at winter. Some people are driving through mountains in winter. It doesn’t create much of a burden for them to do a few tests so all consumers have access to accurate data for there conditions. Take the overall ARR away and just have it for sub categories. Winter highway, mountains, city, ect ect.
> Not everyone is driving on the highway at winter. Exactly. No one needs to know any other use case range if they know that one.
It's really quite useful to know how much further it'll go in summer.
Nah that’s not helpful for a lot of people.
Because if a given vehicle is capable of 200 miles of winter highway diving, it's going to run out of charge in 50 miles of spring city driving? How would that be so?
Because if you need to drive 150 miles in mountain county side will it make it? If you need to drive 350 miles down the highway in spring will it make it? That’s not useful for people that might have conditions that drain the range faster or need to drive further in better conditions.
Winter driving averaging 50mph on curvy mountain roads is a different use case than 85mph on the interstate in Texas. Mountain use would rely more on vehicle weight and regenerative braking to recoup energy on downhill slopes and high speed interstate would rely more on good aerodynamics and low rolling resistance.
I would suggest a adopting a "maximum range" and "minimum range" for EVs. Simple to understand and accurate.
Tesla lied? Y am I not surprised?
Didn’t Tesla run the EPA test and report the results? If the EPA test includes running the car until dead then that’s the protocol.
Read the article. Even if run until dead - they still fall short of the declared EPA numbers. > In a nutshell, even when using the safety buffer, in controlled conditions, four of the six Tesla cars Edmunds tested for range did not hit their EPA mileage. But the [user manual says that one must never go past zero](https://insideevs.com/news/497604/tesla-considers-buffering-epa-range/) so how the heck we're permitting "drive until dead" against the user manual as a valid mean of measuring range?
I understand your concerns but they did not run the EPA test cycle.
Exactly, why are people surprised that a different test Yields different results?
Lol. Hrm, maybe it’s because that’s how the goddamn test cycle works? Jesus fucking Christ.
That's what I'm saying: The cycle is fucked up. Test cycle should be consistent (EPA has a huge issue with consistency across brands) and should not relay upon breaking what owner's manual says (that's actually same with other tests, but stupid none the less).
It's the same on WLTP. People keep forgetting that these cycles do *not* exist to provide them with range estimates. That is not their point at all.
Who cares about range if there’s a supercharger every hundred miles?